On the general issue of personal taxation the bar is set lower for the Conservatives as their general philosophy is to try and keep taxes as low as possible. They may fail to do so in practice a lot of the time but their instincts are for a low tax small state economy.

The Labour Party's instincts are largely in the opposite direction.

You may say that's unfair but it's the way it is in British politics which is why Labour are usually on the defensive on this issue.

I'm not saying it's unfair, I'm saying it's easily rebutted. You're suggesting the Tories main attack line, and something they would be victorious from, would be a) something that they had demonstrably done themselves & couldn't be easily pointed out b) unanswerable, because Labour would be somehow unable to convince the electorate that when they say the top-rate & corporation tax would go up that it wouldn't be all taxes for all people. I don't buy it.

The electorate isn't necessarily always right, though. Most here will favour gay marriage. California of course voted to ban gay marriage just seven years ago; views have dramatically changed since then, partly due to generational shifts but also due to effective arguments and persuasion by the pro-gay marriage side.

Well firstly I don't know how much stock we should put in the fact that a different platform lost in a different era. Secondly, Labour were crucified during the 1980's because of a right-wing split. Unless that repeats itself with just as much effect then, again, we're comparing apples and oranges. Lastly there are a number of things that were seen as politically unviable for the Tories to do, because of the overwhelming opposition, and they've done it on each (thanks in large part to the Lib Dems for giving them an unearned supermajority and free reign to do as they pleased). As you say, these things change through action and persuasion, not to write them off as impossibilities and then wring our hands as "we didn't do enough" after 13 years in stasis.

The Conservatives banged on about Labour causing the financial mess the country was in at the end of their period of office and the public largely agreed with that assessment.

Personally I think about 70% of the financial crisis lies squarely on the shoulders of banks themselves but Brown also failed in his regulation of them which made matters much worse.

If Labour is led by Corbyn in the 2020 general election you can bet your bottom dollar they will bang on about a hike in tax for most people to pay of their proposed policies however much Labour denied that would be the case.

Quite similar to what happened during the 1992 general election in fact.

Your own analysis has Labour at some blame for the banking crisis, demonstrating how easy it was to blame Labour for it. It's completely different convincing people that they're paying taxes that they're not paying. "Are you a corporation?", "do you earn over 150K a year?". Two simple questions showing exactly who will be paying both. When majorities polled support higher taxes on the wealthy that's exactly who they have in mind.

It'd be quite ironic for the Tories to use the same tactic as 1992, given they've a) raised taxes on ordinary people (VAT), b) lied about not doing so, c) claimed it was imperative they done so, d) lowered taxes for the rich (top-rate, inheritance, corporation).

The problem is that this leadership debate is not really about policy, it's about how/what we want the party to be.

We'll some policy has come up, but just social policy (benefits and stuff) and (in a vague sense) some economic stuff. And on those issues even Corbyn The Backbencher is well within the Labour mainstream, let alone Corbyn The Candidate (as several people have noted the irony of this campaign is that the candidate who has modified and moderated his positions the most is... er... Corbyn). But, yes, the issue is that the things on which he has rather more... er... alternative views have not featured.

He can simply argue (like Benn did) quite correctly that he's simply a conduit of the party, it's not just about what he personally supports, but what the party have voted for - and they've voted for the stuff he's campaigned on*. It's about democracy (and I imagine one of his first movements will to be reinstate a lot of that within the party), and the Labour movement, not President Corbyn's thoughts. He's already done this with his republicanism. He knows monarchist sentiment is too strong, so it's not a hill he's going to die on. Similarly, he's arguing for a conditional support of EU because he knows to campaign, like Benn, to leave would see threaten his support within the party.

*Unilateral nuclear disarmament, a raft of nationalisations, removal of any private involvement in education and the NHS, higher taxes on business and the wealthy, rent caps, the return of council housing in force etc

Yeah, Corbyn seems basically to be in line with the left wing of the Danish SD (which is small, but not considered radical) and to the right of the left wing of Icelandic SDA. I am pretty sure he would fit in nicely on the left flank of Norwegian Labour and Swedish SDA as well.

So it is a bit funny for someone this side of the North Sea that he is considered a "Socialist" (of course you can argue that all forms of Social Democracy are an expression of Democratic Socialism) and a radical.

I suppose his critical view of the UK still trying to play the great power game despite dwindling resources is controversial in a British context, whereas his view of foreign policy would be quite normal for a leftist SD in a small country.

Interesting; I'm curious is this comparison done with Corbyn's platform in mind, or his actual views (that are much closer to Bennism, but for the sake of appeal/his campaign have been somewhat diluted).

The Corbyn camp would hope to lead the left in the britain in a massive protest, the greens, the SNP, TUSC and all the rest would somehow float over to labour and the 40% who didn't vote will all come out for Corbyn. They see it as one last charge against austerity, and quite frankly there's a large portion who hope that it will 'purge the blairites' and reduce the labour party to a socialist party that get's 25% of the vote.

The Corbyn camp are supporting a largely social democratic platform, not a million miles (domestically) away from Germany or what's seen in Scandinavia. No-one seems to have noticed that Corbyn's platform is much moderated from Benn's (which got closer to 28% - "but we can moderate and get 30%!!"), with his conditional support for the EU a sign of it.

The Blairites at this point have usually followed Blair's direction of travel since resigning and are now more or less right-wingers who are utterly hostile to any hint of socialism ("I'd rather Cameron than Miliband"; "I wouldn't stand on it even if I knew it was a vote winner", as the Progress audience claps at dat pragmatism) and the unions. Who forget that they've no longer got the Left sown up so marching off to the new Thatcherite settlement is no longer acceptable without losing votes that way (as we seen in Scotland).

Here's the thing though: even were there PR the Labour Party would doubtless remain the massive heterogeneous thing that it is because almost every faction regards itself as the true guardians of its pure and noble tradition etc.

I don't think in the darkest days of New Labour, they've have been able to stop it. 2005 GE for instance, might not have seen defections from any sitting MPs but a sizeable exodus of Labour from voters disgusted with Blair by that point (likely those heading to Kennedy) towards a leftist party, enough to elect a number of MPs. I think that's one of the reasons why the Right in the party are conducting themselves the way they are presently - they've gotten used to the dominance and outraged now it's being challenged.

Well my MP told me that Corbyn would get kicked out by Christmas, and he'd struggle to find anyone worth while to serve in his cabinet-in all fairness my MP's an arch Blairite who supports Kendall but he says there's complete depression in the PLP.

The problem is that Corbyn has rebelled on something like 105 times, I mean I understand voting against Iraq/Tuition Fees/90 day detention but Corbyn rebelled so many times that he's digging himself in an even further ditch. Combined with the fact the PLP have become pretty factional since 1997 it's going to be a struggle.

The only issue, is that the PLP can't simply kick Corbyn out as they'd like to. Even as someone on the 'soft right' of the party such as myself sees that as awful now.

And yeah, I think Jarvis has been crowned as the next leader

As I said, he's afforded New Labour 75% loyalty, it'll be ridiculous - and deeply damaging - if the PLP are seen to be unable to muster the same loyalty as "the most rebellious MP", overriding the party memberships wishes.

The other thing to consider is that the Shadow Cabinet are still elected by the PLP right?

No. But the SCG still has that silly self-denying ordinance from the 1980s in place which automatically removes membership from the SCG to MPs who accept frontbench posts. Not that the SCG is all that there is on the Left in the PLP (far from it), but that fact does complicate things.

Mind you, I suspect that Corbyn is intelligent enough to know that going with a factional ShadCab would be bloody stupid even if he'd presumably appoint one with an overall left lean.

Quote

The other intriguing thing is which of Corbyn's policies will have to be accepted by the PLP to satisfy the membership.

There would have to be considerable give and take on both sides. Firstly because Corbyn The Candidate is a little different to Corbyn The Backbencher (i.e. if he wins he could certainly claim an internal mandate for hard Left economic positions, but not for his other stances as he's barely mentioned them and when he has has played them down), and secondly because a serial rebel might find it hard to impose their will absolutely on the PLP.

To be fair, Corbyn was loyal 75% of the time to New Labour. If the PLP could muster up that loyalty to a SCG shadow cabinet (ie as isolated as the SCG have been in the New Labour years), then I'd be amazed.

I think he's made it plain that he's going to include the spectrum of Labour, a SCG shadow cabinet would only arise if the PLP are refusing participation...which I obviously want to see.

Oh,so now the issue with Ed Miliband is that he wasn't left wing enough?

Aren't you the arch Blairite? I'm sure you can't possibly entertain the thought. Miliband didn't inspire the left anti-austerity vote, nor attract the Very Serious liberals who might be tempted not to vote Tory if given enough of a right-wing platform. In many ways hamstrung by trying to keep party unity and quite reasonably believing an unpopular Tory government, alongside splits in their right flank, could allow him to return on an offer of restraint was his undoing.

Still, this leadership campaign has shown him in a good light if anything.

I must admit that at the time I had paid those bloody 2€ to vote for Montebourg in the first round, just to show the other candidates that there were a few of us who still expected some vaguely left-wing things from them. Deception and disappointment ensued. No need to say I didn't bother choosing between Aubry and Hollande in the runoff.

I think a lot of us on the Left kidded ourselves on a bit on how much Ed would steer left (although tbh, with David being the main contender it was easy to spot the differences), so that deception and disappointment has already happened and I think largely why Burnham's (apparently) not being given the same benefit of doubt.

Love how all the Blairites usually found whingeing at being called Tories & the supposed hostility of Corbyn supporters can be found retweeting stuff like this and McTernan comments.

Although it was nice of Rentoul to admit he'd rather have had Cameron than Miliband in May last night. I mean, he's probably said that before in one of his columns. but no one can be expected to read them and this would've granted his views far more exposure.

I definitely think the "affiliated supporter" idea was a stupid one; it's going to lead to entryism no matter how good your checks.

Perhaps, but I've no doubt that this wouldn't have been an issue if Corbyn hadn't have been in the running. Let's not forget, that in the YouGov poll, the pre-2015 Labour members had Corbyn on 49.2% to Burnham's 50.8%. So all this talk of entryism & "longstanding members in danger of getting trumped" really does begin to sound like sour grapes from people who can't bare the thought that Labour members might elect a socialist.

At least he's moved on from attempting to slur Corbyn as overseeing child abuse.

Quite a supportive tone in today's LabourList article by Eagle for Corbyn (well, what currently stands for support). I wonder if Watson distances himself from Corbyn (I don't believe he will, but still) that she'd be in the running for deputy.

Very interesting chart. It suggests that it will be difficult for the others to chip away at the 43% (if Corbyn is indeed doing that well). In fact at this point Corbyn probably has more potential for gains from the others than they do from him.

I'm hoping for some more polls to confirm such a lead, particularly in view of the welfare vote.

In summary: "I hate a large proportion of the membership and I hate democracy on general!" The female Labour ex-Leftists do tend to be among the most obxious people in the party. Beckett, Harman, Hewitt, Hodge.

Needless to say, it has begun.

Ex-adviser to Tony Blair John McTernan had said MPs who "lent" their nominations to Mr Corbyn to "broaden the debate" were "morons".

Recently brought on to work for Jim Murphy for his 2015 election campaign. Clearly the man knows success.

Honestly, with this field, Poale Zion would likely endorse Corbyn. At least the left bloc would. :p

Speaking of which, I read the haaretz synopsis of this, and Corbyn was... surprisingly reasonable. I was expecting more of a fire and brimstone, Gallowayesque approach.

Other question: why is Corbyn single-handedly destroying this field without even trying, while Abbott just fizzled out last time around? Is he just a better candidate?

I trust Abbott to vote earnestly & left-wing, but I don't trust her to persuade anyone to follow her. A bit too waffley and philosophical (Corbyn can sometimes get like this, but thankfully not as much recently).

Thanks for the correction, I think I was simply going off left-wingers (who I now presume to be inordinately concerned with identity politics) predicting her to be the next best thing - I can now understand why I didn't see why.

I should've really said Old Labour and not Old Left, because I didn't mean to suggest he's left-wing. But there's no denying a lot on the left find common cause with him (his resignation probably helped matters on that front too).

Yeah, I was under the impression MPs had the final say. That's why I expected Burnham would still win no matter what.

There really is a chance Corbyn could win though. It's not totally hypothetical playtime stuff.

Actually one of the great things about OMOV. I must admit however, I was dead set against its enactment since I predicted that MPs would screen out any left-wing candidate (and they probably will from now on, which makes it all the more important he wins now and if nothing else enact further democracy in the party).

Watson's not particularly left-wing, but a bit bolshy, strong union links and hates Murdoch so the Left are more than happy to have him. Creasey seems like the new left to Watson's old left persona - more professional, tackles issues like loan sharks and feminist/social liberalism concerns. Eagle, seems like a Brownite to me, Flint a definite Blairite and Bradshaw even more so.